Not Being Easily Provoked toward God

In my New Year's Resolution post last week, I mentioned that being not easily provoked entails more than just being angry. It includes not acting in the heat of any negative emotion - or not reacting in kind to negative actions of others. I focused primarily on those situations where someone else does something that affects me negatively - and on not reacting likewise in response. I mentioned specifically that the hardest situations in which to avoid being provoked are those that are completely unexpected. That probably is obvious, but . . .

This week has brought something else to my attention - something about which I hinted near the end of my post last week. In that post, I said:

I don't have to pursue them; they will find me completely on their own.

I have come to realize clearly this week that there is more to not being easily provoked than responding to the actions of people directly explicitly at me. As I said last week, things happen naturally in mortality that aren't "planned" in any way - things that are negative and can cause someone "to react in anger, rage, exasperation, vexation or resentment". (to be easily provoked) I have known this, as it is obvious when considered, but focusing on this aspect of charity this week has brought these instances into very sharp relief for me.

I have found that it is even harder sometimes not to react to "life" when it is naturally difficult than to "people" when they act in a hurtful manner. This probably is because people are tangible and easily identified, while "life" is ambiguous and intangible. When someone is hurt by "life", often the only way to personify or embody the hurt is to blame God. In these situations, when hurt needs an outlet (someone to blame), God is an easy target. This is true especially if someone views God as a micro-manager - someone / something that controls all events of one's life (or, at least, those that seem important).

What struck me is that those who view God as responsible directly for all the good things in their lives can have a very difficult time not holding God responsible for the bad things in their lives - at least when those bad things appear to be unexplainable. Sometimes, this actually can result in a "positive" conclusion (like when someone dies and those left behind conclude that "God must have needed her more than we do"), but if such a conclusion is not available readily or comforting the natural "anger, rage, exasperation, vexation or resentment" that would be directed toward a tangible target can be re-directed at God - and the more "tangible" one sees God, the more likely he might be to transfer negative emotions in such a manner.

I honestly have no idea why this stood out so clearly to me this week, but it is what I "learned". I simply hope it helps someone in some way.

Mormon Reincarnation and Universalism

I am a universalist in the Biblical sense of "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I don't see how any believing Christian can address that verse (or the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 15, actually) without being "universalist" in that way - since "all who die in Adam" means "all who ever have lived". In Mormon terms, that means I believe all who ever have lived (minus very few Sons of Perdition, who are the exception that proves the rule) will be "saved" and receive a degree of glory.

I also am universalist in that I believe exaltation is "available" for all - and I am "more universalist" than many other Mormons in that I believe we will be shocked in the end at the percentages that make up the various kingdoms. Frankly, I don't preach reincarnation, since it's not part of the Christian paradigm, but I see a "reincarnative process" in our theology that is missing completely from the rest of Christianity - that informs how we are universalist at heart.

At the very least, we teach of 5-6 distinct states of being - and one more if I am allowed to define creatively.

1) Intelligence (no idea, really, what that means);

2) pre-mortal spirit (no idea, really, what that means other than "created" by exalted parents - or what process was used in that creation);

3) Mortal human (a combination of "immortal" spirit and mortal body);

4) post-mortal spirit (a pre-mortal spirit with more memories); [*grin*]

5) post-resurrection being (which might or might not be "separated" [sorry for the pun] from);

6) post-judgment, "glorified" being (assigned to a kingdom overseen by a God [Father, Son or Holy Ghost].

7) The 7th stage would be Heavenly Parent.

It is noteworthy that the first SIX stages are universal in our theology. The only one that is not universalist in every way is #7 - Heavenly Parent. It also is instructive to note that those who accuse Mormons of being arrogant exclusionists almost "universally" are less universalist than we are. That is one of the most ironic aspects of religious debate I can imagine - and it influences my frustration with conversations with others about temple ordinances. Those discussions generally are couched in terms of the exclusionary arrogance such ordinances illuminate, when, in fact, they are the practical core of our universalism.

Modern Mormon Dance Standards Dilemma

We were at a (Mormon) wedding reception last year (Ohio), and a young woman and her fiance were there. We joked about not having to use a Book of Mormon to measure dancing proximity, and she shot back the following without missing a beat:

“We use the Book of Mormon on DVD.”

Thanks for the laugh, Adrienne - but what should I tell my daughters who are not engaged? *grin*

Faith v. Works Is Such a Stupid Argument

A long conversation with an evangelical - Geoff B. (The Millennial Star)

The comments particularly are excellent.

The Power of Jesus as Brother

I think perhaps the greatest abomination of the apostasy was the distortion of the duality of Jesus' nature - the denial that He was fully God but also fully human. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent," (John 17:3) goes way beyond knowing about Him, but it also does include knowing about Him.

My wife's favorite part of the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 4, specifically because it gives us a glimpse into the self-critical nature of a prophet that we rarely see. It makes Nephi more than a caricature; it makes him fully human. One of the things that makes Isaiah's description of the future Lord so compelling is that it shows His trials and pains and suffering; it makes Him more fully human. "Knowing" Jesus in this sense - allowing Him to be fully human in ALL ways except the actual commission of sin - opens up the possibility of such a deeper, more personal connection than knowing Him "only as God" ever can.

That's perhaps the biggest irony of the Restoration - that it emphasizes the way to have the deepest, most personal relationship with Jesus imaginable (ironically, outside of actual marriage) - that of "brother". Ideally, we know our siblings' faults and weaknesses but love them anyway. By removing all weaknesses and natural tendencies and temptations and spiritual growth, we literally create a chasm we can't cross - a creature we can't approximate - a Savior we can't truly know. Other religions preach the need for a personal relationship with deity, but they erase the principles that allow such a relationship actually to exist. There really is a chasm between their God and them, but it's a chasm of their own digging.

Charity Is Not Easily Provoked

My resolution this month is to be less easily provoked, taken from 1 Corinathians 13:5.

This resolution appears to be very straight-forward. To provoke means:

to anger, enrage, exasperate, vex or cause resentment

Therefore, to be provoked means:

to react in anger, rage, exasperation, vexation or resentment

Perhaps the only thing that jumps out at me immediately from this definition is that charity not being easily provoked includes much more than just "being angry". In fact, unlike the previous characteristics in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and the Sermon on the Mount, it doesn't appear to be about "being" at the most fundamental level. Rather, it is about "doing" - or, more precisely, "reacting". It occurs when someone or something (e.g., a situation) acts in a way that bothers me and I react in a way that is responsive to my being upset at that person or situation.

Even more inportantly, it also includes what we naturally might consider to be less harsh reactions than hate, anger or rage - since exasperation, vexation and resentment also are included. With that in mind, 2 Nephi 2:14 says:

And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

What I take from this is quite elemental, but it is not something I have considered previously:

If I am to be less easily provoked at the end of this month than I am at this moment, I will need to choose my actions consciously and intentionally ("act") in ALL situations and avoid allowing myself to act without thought and intention when I feel a negative emotion reaction ("being acted upon") - especially at those times when that negative emotion is particularly strong.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, I do not need to seek for these experiences. They happen regularly simply as a result of mortality. I don't have to pursue them; they will find me completely on their own - and it is when they are unexpected that my growth or lack thereof will be manifested.

This resolution appears to be related closely to the characteristic of peacemaking in the Seromon on the Mount - and I will be reviewing the posts I wrote about peace as I continue to consider this month's resolution. Perhaps the "being" simply is developing and maintaining internal peace and calm, even amid the storms of life.

A Deeper Look at the Word of Wisdom as Merciful Meekness

I'm not sure if there is a way for someone who is "physiologically weak" and susceptible to addictive substances to transcend that particular weakness and "become strong" - in the sense that they could indulge and NOT become addicted. I'm not aware of any research that shows such an ability. In fact, the heart of AA is the conscious recognition that the alcoholic, in fact, is still an alcoholic - is still weak - even if he never drinks again. Therefore, the strong giving up something of very minor consequence for them to provide critical assistance to others who will need it until the day they die is something that exemplifies the heart of the Gospel, imo.

Phrased another way, there is ONLY one way that there can be full fellowship of the Saints in this particular discussion - and that is abstinence for all. Think about it, focusing on alcohol:

If alcohol was present at Church functions, those who need to avoid it in order to remain free from their addictive tendencies simply could not afford to attend. Any non-drinking alcoholics among the membership would be excluded from those activities - and for what? It would be for nothing but "my right to drink" - placing that right to drink above the potential harm to others either by exposure to the alcohol or the removal of full fellowship with the Saints. In the hierarchy of abominations, putting my own desire to have a beer or a glass of wine over another's need to avoid it is the height of selfishness.

There is an argument to be made for "private indulgence" vs. "public abstinence". That is a compelling distinction, but, if anything, it only highlights the classification of those who "can handle it" and those who are "weak". Furthermore, it encourages those who are weak to try to live a double life - drinkers in private but abstainers in public. Ask anyone who has lived with a drinking, private alcoholic about how they feel about that situation, and perhaps 100% will tell you it's worse than a public alcoholic - since it gives that person the facade of public respectability, which makes it harder for those who regularly are hurt by the private alcoholism to seek and get help.

The difference here is that I don't see this as principally "legalism". I see it principally as "merciful meekness". It is merciful, because it is a decision to not risk potential harm to another when that harm is in one's power to cause; it is meekness, because it is rooted in kindly generosity - which means giving something to someone else out of kindness and concern that need not be given.

Some people speak of "the weak becoming strong", but they never consider that the real challenge might just be to those who are naturally strong where addictive substances are concerned BUT weak in compassion and self-sacrifice. Which is more important to develop in order to become more Christ-like: the ability to drink responsibly or the ability to serve others through an active expression of self-sacrifice - even if that self-sacrifice is by giving up something (alcohol) that is a tiny little thing in the grand scheme of things?

The Real Problem with Mormon History

What's Wrong With Mormon History? I'll Tell You What . . . - Ardis Parshall (Keepapitchinin)

Those Who Are Strong Enough to Avoid Addiction Are Strong Enough to Abstain

The core of the Word of Wisdom, according to the revelation itself, is the avoidance of addiction peddlers. D&C 89:4 makes this clear - and D&C 89:3 is probably the most overlooked, profound verse in the entire D&C. It says that the Word of Wisdom is NOT the ideal "law" - that, rather, it is "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."

When people claim that the Word of Wisdom cannot be revelation from God because it prohibits substances that are good for us when used in moderation, I always point out that such information is irrelevant to the actual wording of the Word of Wisdom itself. What is best for most is NOT the standard articulated in the revelation; what needs to be followed by the "weakest of all saints who are or can be called saints" is the standard. What does this mean?

There are saints who cannot handle any consumption of alcohol or use of tobacco (or other drugs) without becoming addicted. There are "conspiring men" who recognize this and spend millions of dollars trying to get these people hooked. Furthermore, there often is no way to know where your individual limit is until you cross it, and sometimes that simply is too late once you've crossed your own "addiction line". I know way too many people who think they are social drinkers but have moved past that quite clearly, and I know way too many people who got hooked on cigarettes or chewing tobacco after their very first use.

One more point - and this one is something that almost never gets discussed:

If you really are strong enough not to get hooked, you are strong enough to choose not to partake. If someone can't give up alcohol or tobacco or coffee - if he has to justify continued use by citing physical health generalities, there might be more "addiction" going on than he realizes - meaning he might not be as strong as he thinks.

I agree that the rest of the Word of Wisdom probably is a general health standard influenced by the understanding of the time, but the part that has survived in our modern emphasis is the "eternal" aspect - the avoidance of addictions that subject our will to "conspiring men" and weaken our ability to give our will to God. If God explicitly says, "This is not the ideal, but it's what I want my saints to live" - and if it initially wasn't enforced as a commandment (as stated in the revelation) but was changed later (I think) because the influence of those "conspiring men" grew and those in the Church had time to adjust to it - and if it now is a requirement for temple attendance (I think) because "conspiring men" are finding more and more and more ways to addict people and influence their acts and decisions - I can understand and accept that without any difficulty.

Fwiw, as someone who has come to realize he is prone to a bit of obsession and "addiction", I appreciate being raised with the Word of Wisdom and never having to go through the Hell of ditching an addiction. I appreciate being able to take hundreds of dollars a month that some of my friends spend on alcohol and tobacco (enriching already rich, conspiring men) and, instead, spend it on good things of my own choosing - like charitable causes and avoidance of consumer debt (another addiction of conspiring men - interesting how one feeds the other). I appreciate growing up in a culture that did not glamorize alcohol and tobacco use, keeping that type of temptation away from me in my most impressionable years.

I've seen the impact conspiring men have had on our society. It is enormous and absolutely appalling. I will NEVER criticize the Word of Wisdom, even if it does include outdated health statements - especially since the Church no longer stresses, emphasizes or even teaches them actively. For me, that's just another indication that our leaders are inspired to emphasize what still is relevant for our day and move beyond what is not.

A Wonderful Review of an Amazing Book

The Year My Son and I Were Born - Heather O. (Mormon Mommy Wars)